SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The grievance of the appellant is that not only has the appellant as a judgment-debtor been dispossessed from the decretal premises, but the appellant has also been dispossessed from the adjoining property that was not the subject-matter of the suit.
(2.) The position is best understood from two photographs appearing at pages 37 and 38 of the stay petition, though such coloured photographs were not before the executing court. It also appears that, in keeping with the low standards now at the Bar, black and white copies of the photographs were served on the respondents.
(3.) From a description of a property, it appears that the suit premises or the decretal premises is at the eastern extremity of Lindsay Street, a few metres within the Free School Street crossing. The schedule to the plaint indicates the boundaries of the suit premises. To the south of the suit premises is Lindsay Street, to the north is a vacant plot of land. Similarly, both to the east and west, there are vacant plots of land. From the coloured photographs relied upon by the appellant herein, it is evident that to the north of the suit premises, there may be vacant land, what lies east of the suit premises is not evident from the photographs but to the west of the suit premises, there is a vacant land with a boundary wall. The photographs also show a signboard, probably previously put up by the appellant, and the address of the property. It is plain to see that the appellant was in possession of such part of the property and has been dispossessed therefrom pursuant to the orders passed by the executing court.;